Estimation of Average and Maximum Daily-Life Mobility Performance Using the Timed Up-and-Go: Exploring the Added Value of an Instrumented Timed Up-and-Go.

INTRODUCTION: The association between specific motor capacity variables obtained in a laboratory and parameters of daily-life mobility performance (MP) obtained via wearables is still unclear. The Timed Up-and-Go (TUG) test is a widely used motor capacity tests available either as traditional hand-stopped TUG or as instrumented TUG (iTUG), providing specific information about its subphases. This study aimed to: (1) estimate the association between the TUG and specific parameters reflecting average and maximum daily-life MP, (2) estimate the benefits of the iTUG in terms of explaining MP in daily life compared to the TUG. METHODS: The present study was a cross-sectional analysis using baseline data of 294 older persons (mean age: 76.7 ± 5.3 years). Univariate linear regression analysis was performed to delineate the coefficient of determination between TUG time and participants' MP. MP variables containing mean cadence (MCA) to represent average performance and the 95th percentile of mean cadence of walks with more than three steps (p95>3stepsMCA) to represent maximum performance. To determine whether the iTUG variables give more information about MP, a stepwise multivariate regression analysis between iTUG variables and the p95>3stepsMCA variable to represent maximum performance was conducted. RESULTS: The univariate regression models revealed associations of the TUG with MCA (adjusted R2 = 0.078, p < 0.001) and p95>3stepsMCA (adjusted R2 = 0.199, p < 0.001). The multivariate stepwise regression models revealed a total explanation of maximum daily-life MP (p95>3stepsMCA) of the TUG (adjusted R2 = 0.199, p < 0.001) versus iTUG (adjusted R2 = 0.278, p < 0.010). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: This study shows that the TUG better reflects maximum daily-life MP than average daily-life MP. Moreover, we demonstrate the added value of the iTUG for a more accurate estimation of daily MP compared to the traditional TUG. The iTUG is recommended to estimate maximum daily-life MP in fall-prone older adults. The study is a step toward a specific assessment paradigm using capacity variables from the iTUG to estimate maximum daily-life MP.

Comparison of falls and cost-effectiveness of the group versus individually delivered Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) program: final results from the LiFE-is-LiFE non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: the individually delivered Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) was shown to improve physical activity (PA) and reduce fall incidence, however being rather resource-consuming due to one-to-one delivery. A potentially less resource-intensive group format (gLiFE) was developed and compared against the original program, considering higher risk of falling due to possible PA enhancement. OBJECTIVE: to investigate non-inferiority in terms of PA-adjusted fall risk and cost-effectiveness of gLiFE at 12-month follow-up. DESIGN: single-blinded, randomised, multi-centre non-inferiority trial. SETTING: community. SUBJECTS: in total, 309 adults aged 70+ years at risk of or with history of falling; n = 153 in gLiFE, n = 156 in LiFE. METHODS: LiFE was delivered one-to-one at the participants' homes, gLiFE in a group. PA-adjusted fall risk was analysed using negative binomial regression to compare incidence rate ratios (IRR). Cost-effectiveness was presented by incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, considering quality-adjusted life years, PA and falls as effect measures. Secondary analyses included PA (steps/day) and fall outcomes. RESULTS: non-inferiority was inconclusive (IRR 0.96; 95% confidence interval, CI 0.67; 1.37); intervention costs were lower for gLiFE, but cost-effectiveness was uncertain. gLiFE participants significantly increased PA (+1,090 steps/day; 95% CI 345 and 1.835) versus insignificant increase in LiFE (+569, 95% CI -31; 1,168). Number of falls and fallers were reduced in both formats. CONCLUSION: non-inferiority of gLiFE compared with LiFE was inconclusive after 12 months. Increases in PA were clinically relevant in both groups, although nearly twice as high in gLiFE. Despite lower intervention costs of gLiFE, it was not clearly superior in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Changes in Psychological Determinants of Behavior Change after Individual versus Group-Based Lifestyle-integrated Fall Prevention: Results from the LiFE-is-LiFE Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) intervention has been shown to promote physical activity in fall-prone older adults. However, the underlying mechanisms of how LiFE functions remain unclear. This study compares the effects of the individual and group-based LiFE formats on psychological determinants of behavior change derived from the health action process approach, habit formation theory, and self-determination theory. METHODS: Secondary analysis on basis of the randomized, non-inferiority LiFE-is-LiFE trial were performed. Questionnaire data on psychological determinants were obtained from older adults (M = 78.8 years, range 70-95) who took part in either the individual (n = 156) or the group-based (n = 153) LiFE intervention. Measurement points varied from three to six times, and from baseline (T1) up to a 12-month follow-up (T6). A generalized linear mixed model was specified for each determinant. RESULTS: Both LiFE and gLiFE participants reported lower levels of motivational determinants at T6. LiFE participants showed significantly higher values of action planning and coping planning at T6. Participants in both formats showed increased levels of action control at T6, whereas participants' habit strength decreased post-intervention but then stabilized over time. LiFE participants showed higher levels of autonomy, competence, and relatedness throughout the study, but levels of intrinsic motivation did not differ between formats and from T1 to T6. CONCLUSION: In both formats, but especially in the individual LiFE, the behavior change techniques used affected volitional rather than motivational or general determinants of behavior change. Habit strength as an important indicator of the sustainability of the LiFE exercises stabilized over time, indicating that participants, at least partly, sustained their formed habits long-term.

Group-Based and Individually Delivered LiFE: Content Evaluation and Predictors of Training Response - A Dose-Response Analysis.

Introduction: Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) is an effective, individually delivered fall prevention program but comes with substantial resource requirements; hence, a group-format was developed (gLiFE). This study 1) evaluates the program content of two different LiFE formats (group vs individual) and 2) examines the relationship between predictors of training response (dose) and improvements in balance, strength, and physical activity (PA) (response). Material and Methods: The analysis included n = 252 (gLiFE = 126, LiFE = 126) community-dwelling older adults (78.6±5.2 years). LiFE was administered in seven sessions either in a group (gLiFE: 8-12 participants) or individually at home (LiFE). Questionnaire-based, descriptive content evaluation (frequency distributions) included reported frequency of practice (days/week, number of activities), activity preferences, safety, intensity, integrability of activities, and acceptance after 6 months of LiFE practice. Predictors (ie, dose [reported frequency and intensity], safety, and integrability of activities) for improvements in balance, strength, and PA were analyzed using radar charts. Results: In both formats, 11.2 activities were practiced on average. Strength activities were more frequently selected than balance. Content evaluation showed some marginal advantages for the LiFE participants for selected aspects. The effects on balance, strength, and PA were nearly similar in both groups. Participants who performed balance activities more frequently (≥4 days/week) scored better in the balance and PA domain. Those who performed strength activities more frequently (≥4 days/week) performed better in all three outcomes. Higher perceived safety was associated with better performance. Those who reported activities as "not physically exhausting" performed better in all three outcomes. Those who found activities easily integrable into daily routines scored higher in the balance and strength domain. Discussion and Conclusion: Overall, both program formats are comparable with respect to content evaluation and effects. Participants need to perceive the activities as safe, not exhausting, and should practice ≥4 days/week to generate a high benefit from the intervention. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03462654. Registered on 12 March 2018.

Lifestyle-integrated functional exercise to prevent falls and promote physical activity: Results from the LiFE-is-LiFE randomized non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The 'Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise' (LiFE) program successfully reduced risk of falling via improvements in balance and strength, additionally increasing physical activity (PA) in older adults. Generally being delivered in an individual one-to-one format, downsides of LiFE are considerable human resources and costs which hamper large scale implementability. To address this, a group format (gLiFE) was developed and analyzed for its non-inferiority compared to LiFE in reducing activity-adjusted fall incidence and intervention costs. In addition, PA and further secondary outcomes were evaluated. METHODS: Older adults (70 + years) at risk of falling were included in this multi-center, single-blinded, randomized non-inferiority trial. Balance and strength activities and means to enhance PA were delivered in seven intervention sessions, either in a group (gLiFE) or individually at the participant's home (LiFE), followed by two "booster" phone calls. Negative binomial regression was used to analyze non-inferiority of gLiFE compared to LiFE at 6-month follow-up; interventions costs were compared descriptively; secondary outcomes were analyzed using generalized linear models. Analyses were carried out per protocol and intention-to-treat. RESULTS: Three hundred nine persons were randomized into gLiFE (n = 153) and LiFE (n = 156). Non-inferiority of the incidence rate ratio of gLiFE was inconclusive after 6 months according to per protocol (mean = 1.27; 95% CI: 0.80; 2.03) and intention-to-treat analysis (mean = 1.18; 95% CI: 0.75; 1.84). Intervention costs were lower for gLiFE compared to LiFE (-€121 under study conditions; -€212€ under "real world" assumption). Falls were reduced between baseline and follow-up in both groups (gLiFE: -37%; LiFE: -55%); increases in PA were significantly higher in gLiFE (+ 880 steps; 95% CI 252; 1,509). Differences in other secondary outcomes were insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: Although non-inferiority of gLiFE was inconclusive, gLiFE constitutes a less costly alternative to LiFE and it comes with a significantly larger enhancement of daily PA. The fact that no significant differences were found in any secondary outcome underlines that gLiFE addresses functional outcomes to a comparable degree as LiFE. Advantages of both formats should be evaluated in the light of individual needs and preferences before recommending either format. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was preregistered under clinicaltrials.gov (identifier: NCT03462654 ) on March 12th 2018.

[Group-based exercise to prevent falls in community-dwelling older adults : Update of the 2009 recommendations of the German Federal Initiative to Prevent Falls]. / Empfehlungspapier für das körperliche Gruppentraining zur Sturzprävention bei älteren, zu Hause lebenden Menschen : Aktualisierung des Empfehlungspapiers der Bundesinitiative Sturzprävention von 2009.

This update of the 2009 recommendations of the German Federal Initiative to Prevent Falls in community-dwelling older persons includes current evidence on state-of-the-art fall prevention group programs and aims to foster their set-up including recommendations on the implementation process. A standardized pathway for identification of the target group as well as guidelines regarding program content and structure, quality assurance, financing, and trainer education are addressed. Established programs being available in Germany are compiled and described briefly.

Association between everyday walking activity, objective and perceived risk of falling in older adults.

BACKGROUND: older persons can be grouped according to their objective risk of falling (ORF) and perceived risk of falling (PRF) into 'vigorous' (low ORF/PRF), 'anxious' (low ORF/high PRF), 'stoic' (high ORF/low PRF) and 'aware' (high ORF/PRF). Sensor-assessed daily walking activity of these four groups has not been investigated, yet. OBJECTIVE: we examined everyday walking activity in those four groups and its association with ORF and PRF. DESIGN: cross-sectional. SETTING: community. SUBJECTS: N = 294 participants aged 70 years and older. METHODS: ORF was determined based on multiple independent risk factors; PRF was determined based on the Short Falls Efficacy Scale-International. Subjects were allocated to the four groups accordingly. Linear regression was used to quantify the associations of these groups with the mean number of accelerometer-assessed steps per day over 1 week as the dependent variable. 'Vigorous' was used as the reference group. RESULTS: average number of steps per day in the four groups were 6,339 ('vigorous'), 5,781 ('anxious'), 4,555 ('stoic') and 4,528 ('aware'). Compared with the 'vigorous', 'stoic' (-1,482; confidence interval (CI): -2,473; -491) and 'aware' (-1,481; CI: -2,504; -458) participants took significantly less steps, but not the 'anxious' (-580 steps; CI: -1,440; 280). CONCLUSION: we have integrated a digital mobility outcome into a fall risk categorisation based on ORF and PRF. Steps per day in this sample of community-dwelling older persons were in accordance with their ORF rather than their PRF. Whether this grouping approach can be used for the specification of participants' needs when taking part in programmes to prevent falls and simultaneously promote physical activity remains to be answered in intervention studies.

Group or individual lifestyle-integrated functional exercise (LiFE)? A qualitative analysis of acceptability.

BACKGROUND: The Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) program is an effective but resource-intensive fall prevention program delivered one-to-one in participants' homes. A recently developed group-based LiFE (gLiFE) could enhance large-scale implementability and decrease resource intensity. The aim of this qualitative focus group study is to compare participants' experiences regarding acceptability of gLiFE vs LiFE. METHODS: Programs were delivered in seven group sessions (gLiFE) or seven individual home visits (LiFE) within a multi-center, randomized non-inferiority trial. Four structured focus group discussions (90-100 min duration; one per format and study site) on content, structure, and subjective effects of gLiFE and LiFE were conducted. Qualitative content analysis using the method of inductive category formation by Mayring was applied for data analysis. Coding was managed using NVivo. RESULTS: In both formats, participants (N = 30, 22 women, ngLiFE = 15, nLiFE = 15, mean age 78.8 ± 6.6 years) were positive about content, structure, and support received by trainers. Participants reflected on advantages of both formats: the social aspects of learning the program in a peer group (gLiFE), and benefits of learning the program at home (LiFE). In gLiFE, some difficulties with the implementation of activities were reported. In both formats, the majority of participants reported positive outcomes and successful implementation of new movement habits. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to examine participants' views on and experiences with gLiFE and LiFE, revealing strengths and limitations of both formats that can be used for program refinement. Both formats were highly acceptable to participants, suggesting that gLiFE may have similar potential to be adopted by adults aged 70 years and older compared to LiFE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03462654 . Registered on March 12, 2018.

Applying Social Cognition Models to Explain Walking Duration in Older Adults: The Role of Intrinsic Motivation.

This study examined the applicability of the health action process approach (HAPA) to walking duration in older adults and the added value of extending the HAPA by intrinsic motivation. Self-reports from older adults (N = 309; Mage = 78.7, 70-95 years) regarding activity-related intrinsic motivation and HAPA variables were collected at the baseline of a fall prevention intervention study. Walking duration at ≥3 metabolic equivalents of task was measured for 7 days via body-worn accelerometers. Two structural equation models with walking duration as a manifest outcome were specified. In both models, the model fit was acceptable, but intention and planning were not associated with walking duration. Intrinsic motivation was significantly related to most HAPA variables and walking duration. Variance explained for walking duration was R2 = .14 in the HAPA and R2 = .17 in the extended model. For explaining older adults' walking duration, intrinsic motivation, but not HAPA-based intention and planning, seemed to be important.